My Claude admits mistakes and then fixes them on its own all the time.

Often even without my input: "(thinking..) Oh I discovered that I misjudged XYX, let me fix that.. (thinking) (executing scripts) Okay I corrected my mistake, I had accidentily ABC."

I really doubt that any country except maybe Germany would have introduced this legislation by themselves.

My mom sometimes buys wool from online wool sellers which often are other 60 year old ladies who really don't know much about the internet or business.

These are affected, too, and will probably all stop selling to other EU countries because how could they ever fully grasp that regulation in all its details.

It's a shame, life and doing business is difficult enough already, and then millions of people get those regulations thrown at them.

They already had a big wave of newsletter closures when the EU's GDPR came around and everyone was scared to handle customer data. Now here's the next round.

I'm not agreeing with everything that this user wrote but for sure the Brexit did not destroy UK's economy. GDP-wise the UK and France always developed very similarly before Brexit and also after Brexit, so it's hard to call it a "desaster".

You mean, it's good to have _even more_ bad regulations?

Or rather, if a little bit of X is bad, why would you want more of X?

If you look at what I responded to then you see that it was about every country having their own rules. "More EU" would mean harmonizing them in the sense that they are all the same and you'd have a single regulatory body.

I don't see how less EU would make this particular problem any easier. It would certainly give you an even harder time to deal with 20+ states that all impose import bureaucracy. That's exactly what the EU was founded to solve, but the menber states are populisting against it, not unlike your comment.

What about the argument of these regulations not existing in the first place were it not for the EU?

Without the EU you wouldn't have a single set of annoying overly-bureaucratic bloc-wide regulation for trade between member states, you'd have a bunch of bilateral agreements between individual countries. You might not be paying a new tax to the EU, but instead you'd pay much more for your postal service to file customs paperwork based on declarations you'd have to write. And I'd guess countries would still want you to have a local representative for a bunch of things, not to mention compliance with tens of slightly-different safety standards (think CE).

Maybe it wouldn't be that much worse, but certainly not better than what we have today.

The EU existed for a long time now and you could replace all of this with bilateral organisations focused on narrow topics, rather than a bureaucratic body with an open agenda and no real checks and balances.

You think without EU there would be no regulations and everything would be free for all? You must be young or don't remember pre-EU times.

In CS terms, the EU turned an O(n^2) problem, bilateral agreements, into an O(n) problem, everybody trying to get their view into a single body. The advantages should be obvious to anybody knowing O notation.

Again, not to say EU doesn't have problems. But dismantling the EU is not the solution. Improving it is.

I never understand this argument. The same logic would suggest that things like the GPL, CNCF, OCI etc. are somehow harmful when, objectively, it's the opposite. Standardisation and conformity lead to much larger and more efficient ecosystems. Why should it not be the same for the EU?

As in the UK, where we've since gotten rid of all the regulation and live in a halcyon utopia.

> It's still a lot better than not having it

In this case no, it would be a lot easier to make business without the EU than with it.

Having the EU should make things better and easier, not harder and worse, for the members of said EU.

"Usually"? How many of Amazon's AWS customers have a custom SLA with them, maybe 0.001%?

I would say even smaller; but more than 90% of those SLAs will have explicit remediation and compensation clauses, hence “usually” wrt. to negotiating an SLA.

Why should the entire flight be compensated? The airline provided the flight, just 24 hours later (and the delay is what the $100 are supposed to compensate).

Because the customer purchased a flight on a specific date, which was not delivered.

If you book a hotel room for 1-7 August to visit a conference, would you be okay if they said "oopsie, it'll be available for you 10-17 August, here's a $100 compensation"? What about a rental car, or food delivery? Is it okay for your wedding photographer to show up a day late? Of course not, the product you bought is inherently time-sensitive.

Many businesses have a notion of partial delivery. If you hire a contractor to build an extension on your house and they get sick halfway through the project and hand off to another contractor who completes it a few weeks or even months late, you don't get it for free.

How many times does a door dasher have to deliver your food 24 hours later before you realize your argument has flaws?

$100 to compensate for having to put an entire day of my limited set of days on this planet on hold is insulting. That's four bucks an hour.

Because that’s what always happens? Because their raison d’etre is to squeeze you dry?

The amount of money you pay is irrelevant if you don't leave the platform once they starting adding revenue streams that degrade your experience.

$20 a month is not nearly enough. The current finances require AI companies to make far more money than that to not implode.

look at every paid streaming service...

To be fair those enshittified because of copyright owners, not because of paid streaming services.

If there is an extra buck to be made, or another promotion to be handed to a middle manager, it will be enshittified to get it.

That is why we are seeing paid streaming services with ads.

Whatever level of safety you are at, it's always easy to advocate for more. It's always a trade-off and in the end a matter of preference and risk-tolerance.